export_data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it writes output_path, may overwrite existing content, and in central deployments requires an artifact-relative path plus export permission. It stops short of stating what happens on a failed or partial write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the mutation risk, then the deployment prerequisite. Every clause carries distinct information with no repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive write tool with no output schema and 71% parameter coverage, the description covers the critical unknowns: overwrite risk, path constraints, and permissions. It could still say what the tool returns or how large exports behave, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 71%, so most parameters are already documented. The description reinforces format choices (JSON/CSV/Parquet) and the output_path branch selection, but adds nothing about selection cut syntax, compress semantics, or the relationship between path and tree_name, so it does not compensate for the remaining gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb plus resource: "Export selected ROOT branches to a JSON, CSV or Parquet file" tells the agent exactly what is produced and in what formats, which separates it from read-only siblings like read_branches and inspect_file. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, so it stays short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the write-to-file framing and the note that central deployments require artifact-relative paths and export permission, which is real context. However, there is no explicit "use this instead of read_branches when..." guidance or statement of when not to export, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with read_branches/get_branch_stats.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.